Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17123552 | DYNAMIC CHARGING DEMAND SIDE RESPONSE METHOD AND DYNAMIC CHARGING DEMAND SIDE MANAGEMENT METHOD BASED ON CONSUMER ORDER, AND DEMAND SIDE MANAGEMENT CONTROL SYSTEM FOR PERFORMING THE METHODS | December 2020 | July 2024 | Abandon | 43 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17058047 | CYBERSECURITY QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS SOFTWARE AS A SERVICE | November 2020 | January 2024 | Abandon | 38 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17080918 | Methods and Systems for Vendor Selection for Enterprise Resource Planning Systems | October 2020 | March 2023 | Abandon | 29 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 17071450 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, RECORDING MEDIUM, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD | October 2020 | March 2023 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17031933 | DEVICE, METHOD AND COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM FOR ANALYZING CUSTOMER ATTRIBUTE INFORMATION | September 2020 | June 2022 | Abandon | 20 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16994316 | CANNABIS RISK COMPLIANCE AND EXCHANGE PLATFORM | August 2020 | November 2023 | Abandon | 39 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16993642 | SYSTEM AND METHOD TO PROVIDE WARRANTY FOR A UTILITY EQUIPMENT | August 2020 | August 2022 | Abandon | 24 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16966864 | METHOD, APPARATUS AND SYSTEM FOR GENERATING PREFERENTIAL INFORMATION ACCORDING TO RECIPE TASK | July 2020 | August 2023 | Abandon | 37 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 16935888 | CUSTOMIZED SCHEDULES USING REAL-TIME USER PROVIDED DATA | July 2020 | June 2024 | Abandon | 46 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16876774 | System and Method to Recommend a Service Provider | May 2020 | August 2023 | Allow | 38 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16860278 | RULE PRESENTATION METHOD, STORAGE MEDIUM, AND RULE PRESENTATION APPARATUS | April 2020 | December 2023 | Abandon | 43 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 16814449 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TECHNOLOGY RECOMMENDATIONS | March 2020 | September 2023 | Abandon | 43 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16640734 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD | February 2020 | March 2023 | Abandon | 37 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16790235 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR RESOURCE ALLOCATION PREDICTION AND MODELING, AND RESOURCE ACQUISITION OFFER GENERATION, ADJUSTMENT AND APPROVAL | February 2020 | October 2023 | Allow | 44 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16745958 | TASK MAP PROVIDING APPARATUS AND METHOD THEREOF | January 2020 | December 2022 | Allow | 35 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16625848 | ACTIVITY RECORDING DEVICE, ACTIVITY RECORDING PROGRAM, AND ACTIVITY RECORDING METHOD | December 2019 | September 2021 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16711934 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING FASHION COORDINATION KNOWLEDGE BASED ON NEURAL NETWORK HAVING EXPLICIT MEMORY | December 2019 | December 2023 | Abandon | 48 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 16658979 | Price-Based User Feedback System | October 2019 | July 2022 | Abandon | 33 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16494138 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DYNAMICALLY IMPROVING THE PERFORMANCE OF SECURITY SCREENING | September 2019 | July 2024 | Abandon | 58 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16561980 | NEUROLOGICAL PROFILES FOR MARKET MATCHING AND STIMULUS PRESENTATION | September 2019 | March 2023 | Allow | 42 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16479683 | System for Interest-Aligned Educational Degree Planning | July 2019 | June 2022 | Abandon | 35 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16513784 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY BREACH MEASUREMENT | July 2019 | June 2022 | Abandon | 35 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16443238 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR QUEUE LOOK AHEAD TO OPTIMIZE AGENT ASSIGNMENT AND UTILIZATION | June 2019 | August 2022 | Allow | 38 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16443211 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR QUEUE LOOK AHEAD TO OPTIMIZE WORK ASSIGNMENT TO AVAILABLE AGENTS | June 2019 | August 2022 | Allow | 38 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16419495 | Systems and Methods of Assessing Viability of Real Estate Entities | May 2019 | November 2023 | Allow | 54 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16418417 | INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, PARTS SELECTION METHOD, AND COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM | May 2019 | November 2022 | Abandon | 42 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16416883 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR RESOURCE ALLOCATION PREDICTION AND MODELING, AND RESOURCE ACQUISITION OFFER GENERATION, ADJUSTMENT AND APPROVAL | May 2019 | November 2023 | Allow | 54 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16364090 | ISSUE AND TRIGGER REBALANCING IN A RANKED ISSUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | March 2019 | November 2023 | Allow | 56 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16275195 | UTILIZING A MACHINE LEARNING MODEL AND NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING TO MANAGE AND ALLOCATE TASKS | February 2019 | September 2021 | Allow | 31 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16322472 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CALCULATING REACH WITH THE CONVERGENCE OF MULTIPLE PANEL UNIVERSES | January 2019 | August 2022 | Abandon | 42 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16250744 | ELASTIC DISTRIBUTION QUEUING OF MASS DATA FOR THE USE IN DIRECTOR DRIVEN COMPANY ASSESSMENT | January 2019 | June 2023 | Abandon | 53 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16250922 | TECHNOLOGY APPLYING A DEPENDENCY GRAPH TO GENERATE AN UPDATED TEACHING PLAN BASED ON UNEXPECTED EVENTS | January 2019 | January 2022 | Abandon | 36 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16250660 | POST-PURCHASE PRODUCT INTERACTION | January 2019 | November 2023 | Abandon | 58 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16250739 | System and Methods for Assessing and Analyzing Security Risk of a Physical Infrastructure | January 2019 | March 2021 | Abandon | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16249709 | EFFICIENT ANALYSIS OF USER-RELATED DATA FOR DETERMINING USAGE OF ENTERPRISE RESOURCE SYSTEMS | January 2019 | March 2022 | Allow | 38 | 3 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16309466 | INTELLIGENT REGULATION SYSTEM FOR ASSET MANAGEMENT | December 2018 | March 2022 | Abandon | 39 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16176225 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DYNAMICALLY AVOIDING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONAL INCIDENTS IN A BUSINESS PROCESS | October 2018 | August 2022 | Abandon | 45 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16173020 | DATA ANALYSIS SYSTEM AND APPARATUS FOR ANALYZING MANUFACTURING DEFECTS BASED ON KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS | October 2018 | September 2021 | Allow | 34 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16168288 | Machine Learning-Based Generation of Target Segments | October 2018 | September 2022 | Allow | 47 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16168409 | SYSTEM AND METHOD TO IDENTIFY RELATIVE AVAILABILITY FOR A PRE-DETERMINED TEAM | October 2018 | April 2022 | Abandon | 42 | 3 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16166540 | PRODUCTION ALLOCATION DETERMINING APPARATUS AND PRODUCTION ALLOCATION DETERMINING METHOD | October 2018 | June 2021 | Abandon | 32 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16010914 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | June 2018 | November 2020 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16011256 | CONTEXTUAL TRIGGER-BASED TEMPORARY ADVISOR MATCHING SYSTEM AND METHOD | June 2018 | April 2023 | Abandon | 58 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16009984 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR HYBRID CLOUD-EDGE COMPUTING METHOD FOR AUTOMATED DECISION MAKING AND PROBABILISTIC OCCURRENCE | June 2018 | January 2022 | Abandon | 43 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16009871 | POINT-OF-SALE TERMINAL WITH QUESTIONNAIRE FUNCTION | June 2018 | December 2021 | Abandon | 42 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 15967799 | DYNAMIC MARKETING AND PRICING SYSTEM FOR SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITIES | May 2018 | August 2021 | Abandon | 39 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15967839 | MARKETING CONTENT SELECTION AND EXECUTION SYSTEM WITH MULTIVARIATE TESTING | May 2018 | September 2021 | Abandon | 40 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15968199 | MODEL VALIDATION OF CREDIT RISK | May 2018 | May 2022 | Allow | 49 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15968352 | System and Method of Segmented Modelling for Campaign Planning in a Very Large-Scale Supply Chain Network | May 2018 | August 2023 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 15966310 | POST-MERGER/ACQUISITION INTEGRATION OF SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES USING A COMPARISON, RECOMMENDATION AND MIGRATION TOOL | April 2018 | December 2022 | Abandon | 56 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15966555 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DATABASE ARCHITECTURE FOR ELECTRONIC DATA OPTIMIZATION AND MANAGEMENT | April 2018 | March 2021 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15882585 | METHOD OF GENERATING A TASK PLAN, INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM | January 2018 | September 2020 | Abandon | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15876591 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM | January 2018 | March 2021 | Abandon | 38 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15876554 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MONITORING AND MITIGATING JOB-RELATED STRESS FOR AGENTS USING A COMPUTER SYSTEM IN A CUSTOMER SERVICE COMPUTER NETWORK | January 2018 | February 2021 | Abandon | 37 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15875851 | METHOD OF CREATING A TASK PLAN, INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM | January 2018 | August 2021 | Abandon | 43 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 15874402 | DISRUPTION CONTROL IN COMPLEX SCHEDULES | January 2018 | May 2023 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15864850 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR REAL-TIME SCHEDULING REALLOCATION | January 2018 | January 2023 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15834790 | Live Event Ticket Pricing Engine and Services | December 2017 | July 2022 | Abandon | 55 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15834562 | COGNITIVE COMPATIBILITY MAPPING | December 2017 | April 2022 | Abandon | 53 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15834453 | COGNITIVE TASK ASSIGNMENT FOR COMPUTER SECURITY OPERATIONS | December 2017 | September 2021 | Abandon | 45 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 15683368 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR REAL-TIME PREDICTIVE SCHEDULING | August 2017 | December 2022 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15683764 | SYSTEM AND COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR OPTIMIZED EXECUTION IN A VALUE CHAIN NETWORK | August 2017 | October 2022 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15653383 | TASK EXECUTION SUPPORT DEVICE, TASK EXECUTION SUPPORT SYSTEM, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM | July 2017 | January 2021 | Abandon | 42 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 15609565 | FLASH RETAILING | May 2017 | July 2022 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15477413 | INTERFACE FOR MODELING CONFIGURABLE PRODUCTS | April 2017 | May 2021 | Allow | 50 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15446056 | DEVICE FOR SCOUTING A CONSTRUCTION SITE FOR CONSTRUCTION DEVICE DEPLOYMENT | March 2017 | February 2022 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15447004 | REAL-TIME MONITORING OF TERRESTRIAL LOGISTICS NETWORKS | March 2017 | April 2021 | Abandon | 49 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15446605 | AUTOMATIC ANALYSIS OF A TECHNICAL CAPABILITY | March 2017 | December 2020 | Abandon | 45 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14955815 | MULTINODE DISTRIBUTED INTEGRITY OF PRODUCING FILES | December 2015 | May 2022 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner SANTIAGO-MERCED, FRANCIS Z.
Filing a Notice of Appeal can sometimes lead to allowance even before the appeal is fully briefed or decided by the PTAB. This occurs when the examiner or their supervisor reconsiders the rejection during the mandatory appeal conference (MPEP § 1207.01) after the appeal is filed.
In this dataset, 44.4% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is above the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal can be an effective strategy for prompting reconsideration.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner SANTIAGO-MERCED, FRANCIS Z works in Art Unit 3683 and has examined 69 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 31.9%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 42 months.
Examiner SANTIAGO-MERCED, FRANCIS Z's allowance rate of 31.9% places them in the 5% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by SANTIAGO-MERCED, FRANCIS Z receive 3.59 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 93% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues more office actions than most examiners, which may indicate thorough examination or difficulty in reaching agreement with applicants.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by SANTIAGO-MERCED, FRANCIS Z is 42 months. This places the examiner in the 20% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +44.6% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by SANTIAGO-MERCED, FRANCIS Z. This interview benefit is in the 89% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner and should be strongly considered as a prosecution strategy. Per MPEP § 713.10, interviews are available at any time before the Notice of Allowance is mailed or jurisdiction transfers to the PTAB.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 9.4% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 6% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show lower effectiveness with this examiner compared to others. Consider whether a continuation application might be more strategic, especially if you need to add new matter or significantly broaden claims.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 8.8% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 10% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments compared to other examiners. You should generally plan to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry. Per MPEP § 714.12, primary examiners have discretion in entering after-final amendments, and this examiner exercises that discretion conservatively.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 120.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 83% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. Before filing a full appeal brief, strongly consider requesting a PAC. The PAC provides an opportunity for the examiner and supervisory personnel to reconsider the rejection before the case proceeds to the PTAB.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 98% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 62.5% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1207.01, all appeals must go through a mandatory appeal conference. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration even before you file an Appeal Brief.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 100.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 93% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are frequently granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1002.02(c), various examiner actions are petitionable to the Technology Center Director, including prematureness of final rejection, refusal to enter amendments, and requirement for information. If you believe an examiner action is improper, consider filing a petition.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 38% percentile). This examiner makes examiner's amendments less often than average. You may need to make most claim amendments yourself.
Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 44% percentile). This examiner issues Quayle actions less often than average. Allowances may come directly without a separate action for formal matters.
Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:
Not Legal Advice: The information provided in this report is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with a qualified patent attorney or agent for advice specific to your situation.
No Guarantees: We do not provide any guarantees as to the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the statistics presented above. Patent prosecution statistics are derived from publicly available USPTO data and are subject to data quality limitations, processing errors, and changes in USPTO practices over time.
Limitation of Liability: Under no circumstances will IronCrow AI be liable for any outcome, decision, or action resulting from your reliance on the statistics, analysis, or recommendations presented in this report. Past prosecution patterns do not guarantee future results.
Use at Your Own Risk: While we strive to provide accurate and useful prosecution statistics, you should independently verify any information that is material to your prosecution strategy and use your professional judgment in all patent prosecution matters.